All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants A and B sold each land listed in the separate sheet of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “the land of this case”), and Defendant A and Dong E were aware of the actual purchaser of the land at the time and accepted the request for replacement of the purchaser’s name for convenience if necessary later from AT and I, the purchaser of the land of this case, and the intermediate payment was deposited in Defendant B’s name. Since Defendant A and Dong E were in the situation where the buyer borrowed the land of this case in the name of the buyer as collateral or the intermediate payment was deposited in Defendant B’s name, the seller attempted to prepare a new contract with the buyer’s name as Defendant B at any time. Accordingly, Defendant A and Dong E were trying to prepare a purchase and sale contract retroactively at any time according to the intention of Defendant A and the deceased E as seen above, only prepared a new contract with the buyer as evidence and submitted the contract of this case to Defendant B and did not have any damage to the victims, and thus, Defendant A and Dong E did not have any criminal intent.

However, the lower court convicted the Defendants of attempted fraud among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in one year of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant A, and two years of suspended sentence in six months of suspended sentence for Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the purpose of the lawsuit fraud is to induce a court to defraud a third party’s property by deceiving a third party, and it is to be recognized as a fraud at the time of the lawsuit.